Movie Branding

The New York Times has a strong story on the marketing strategy behind the impending release of Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth installment in the long-running Die Hard series, starring Bruce Willis:

Tom Rothman, a co-chairman of Fox, said the studio consciously took advantage of the summertime action-movie gap in its decision to release its fourth Die Hard on June 27, five days after Universal’s Evan Almighty and a week before Transformers, from Paramount and DreamWorks. A surfeit of fantasy and computer-generated visual effects has left a hunger in the audience for real things, Mr. Rothman added. Over the next few weeks Fox will tease that perceived appetite with a marketing campaign that promotes John McClane with the words: No mask. No cape. No problem.

Of course, the studios invariably “jockey for position” with respect to release date and genre, but this campaign marks a rarer case of more directly positioning a film against its competition. Nicely done.

Disclaimer: I often do work for 20th Century Fox, but I wasn’t involved in this particular promotion.

The St. Petersburg Times’ award-winning nostalgia blog, Stuck in the ’80s, recently graced us with their picks for the worst movies of the “Me Decade.” Their top ten?

• Absolute Beginners — “Welcome to the world of your dreams!”
• Yentl — “Nothing’s Impossible.”
• Cobra — “Crime is the disease. Meet the Cure.”
• Heartbeeps — “Be on the lookout for this gang of misfit robots.”
• The Pirate Movie — “Buckle Your Swash and Jolly Your Roger for the Funniest Rock ‘N Rollickin’ Adventure Ever!”
• Defcon-4
• Rhinestone — “A rip roaring, hard lovin’ comedy hit with wonderful new songs by Dolly Parton.”
• Ishtar
• Over The Top — “Some fight for money… Some fight for glory… He’s fighting for his son’s love.”

And the “winner” is…

• Gymkata — “The skill of gymnastics, the kill of karate.”

You’ll forgive me if don’t rent these to see if I agree or not. LINK

Mediabistro.com contributor Susan Self pulls back the curtain to reveal the secrets to promoting a really bad DVD. Her first trick of the trade? Revise history!

Since DVD’s are an incredibly lucrative product, the studios will buy up cheaply-priced, understandably forgotten films from the 80’s and 90s and dump them back on the market under assumed names. These box office bombs are ‘refreshed’ with a new title, a new tagline, and most important, new box designs. It doesn’t matter what the movie is really about — starving orphans in Bombay, the vanishing rainforest — the default low-budget indie film box art remains the same: boobs and a gun.

It’s not pretty, but it is Hollywood. LINK

And the nominees are …

• Babel
• The Departed
• Letters from Iwo Jima
• Little Miss Sunshine
• The Queen

My pick? Little Miss Sunshine, of course.  A great story, a great cast, a great title, and Redondo Beach (played beautifully by Ventura) – how can it lose?

I missed The Boston Globe round-up of the best movie titles ever.  If you did too, they chose:

• Snakes on a Plane (2006)
• The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964)
• Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984)
• Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song (1971)
• Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)
• The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
• Surf Nazis Must Die (1987)
• To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (1995)
• Rat Pfink a Boo Boo (1966)
• Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
• Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

I think by and large they’re confusing Most Unusual with Best, but I admire the effort! LINK

While we’re on the subject of movie titles, Variety has a short piece (subtitled Unoriginal Sins) on the striking similarities among the names of many of this year’s Oscar contenders. Citing such sets as The Good Shepherd, The Good German, and A Good Year, the author concludes:

This won’t come as a big shock to most here, but it seems like the titles of theatrical releases have been focus-grouped to the point of insanity — and the only variety in the room is the publication you’re reading right now.

He exaggerates, but there’s still nothing like an original, evocative title to draw an audience in. I especially like his suggested name for the sequel to Denzel Washington’s Deja Vu — Deja  Vu 2: Deja Vu! LINK

The Los Angeles Times has a fun little article putting forward some early contenders for the imaginary honor of the The Most Awesome Movie Title of 2007. Their picks:

• Live Free or Die Hard
• Disturbia
• Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters
• Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium
• There Will Be Blood

My own picks?

• Ratatouille
• Grindhouse
• The King of California
• Friends (With Benefits)
• Totilla Heaven

It’s too bad there can’t be an actual award for best title; we’d have a lot more good stuff to choose from! LINK

According to a recent article in the Journal of Consumer Research, movie audiences will pick a sequel with its own title (e.g. the hypothetical Daredevil: Taking It To The Streets) over one with simply a number appended (Daredevil 2).  The UCLA | Wharton research team concluded that moviegoers are seeking some sort of clue that the follow-on isn’t just a retread.  In other words, they want more than a familiar premise and engaging characters; they want a new story. LINK

My favorite Australian paper, the Sydney Morning Herald, has a nice, long, opinionated article on what makes for a great movie title. According to columnist Garry Maddox,

… titles do matter. Why else would a romantic comedy called $3000, named after the sum a wealthy client pays a hooker, be changed to Pretty Woman? So that we all buy into the sweet fantasy of that classic Hollywood romance without being reminded that it’s a movie about a businessman with more money than friends hiring a prostitute off the street.

Garry like his titles short and snappy (Alien … Braveheart … Chinatown … Gladiator … Twister) or evocative and intriguing (Girl, Interrupted … My Big Fat Greek Wedding … The Good, The Bad and The Ugly … The Silence of the Lambs). He cites The Cinderella Man, starring fellow Aussie Russell Crowe, as a great movie whose title missed the mark.

I couldn’t agree more. Around here movie titles are some of our favorite projects, but it’s always a challenge. There are typically too many cooks in the studio kitchen and the cost of a mistake is enormous. Where else but in Hollywood does a brand fail or succeed in the first weekend?

My only problem with Garry’s piece? His own title. It sure seems like every naming article ever written is cleverly called What’s in a Name?! Give us a break! LINK (Reposted)

CNN has an interesting piece on the question of whether or not über-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (best known for his signature action-adventure films Armageddon, Bad Boys, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Rock, Top Gun, and, my personal favorite, the underrated Con Air). Entitled Bruckheimer: The Brand Name In Movies, the article notes that some feel that Bruckheimer’s name is a negative rather than a positive when attached to a picture that doesn’t feature any explosions — his just-released basketball drama Glory Road, for example.

I believe this is a case of inside baseball (to mix my metaphors). While it may be true that many critics have trouble swallowing a different type of Bruckheimer movie, for the typical filmgoer (like me) it’s really not an issue. Unlike the name of many a Hollywood celebrity actor, the name of a famous producer functions more like a co-brand or an ingredient brand than a master brand. Although it’s taken him awhile to persuade the Academy, we as the audience applaud Stephen Spielberg when he ventures into new territory, as he’s increasingly done with Amistad, The Terminal, Memoirs of a Geisha, and now Munich.

I think Jerry’s future is bright should he choose to challenge the notion of a stereotypical Bruckheimer pic. LINK (Reposted)